9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and brevity. 2. As the grounds of appeal in both the appeals are similarly, therefore, the grounds as raised in ITA No. 147/Chd/2011, are reproduced hereunder: "1. That the order passed by the CIT(A) in partly al lowing the appeal and confirming action of the Assessing Officer are illegal, arbitrary, have been passed in a haste and have ignored basic aspects and facts thus causing undue hardship to the appellant. 2. That the CIT (A) has erred both on facts and law in confirming the addition of Rs.8876931/- on account of interest on Deposit Works. The addition is illegal, bereft of merit and deserves to be deleted. It is prayed that addition of Rs.8876931 may kindly be ordered to be deleted. 3. That the CIT (A) has erred both on facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ordered to be deleted. 7. That the CIT (A) has erred both on facts and law in confirming the addition of a sum of Rs.256429 on account of honorarium paid to the chairman. The addition has been confirmed without considering the facts of the case correctly and is illegal, bereft of merit and deserves to be deleted. It is prayed that addition of Rs. 256429 may kindly be ordered to be deleted. 8. That the appellant craves to add, delete, concede, modify and alter any or all the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing." 3. In the course of present appellate proceedings, both ld. 'AR' and ld. 'DR' stated that most of the grounds are covered by the order of the Tribunal , in assessee's own case in ITA No. 1003/Chd/2009, assessment year 2006- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to interfere with the above finding drawn by the CIT(Appeals). In view of the absence of evidence and also the precedent in assessee's own case, we find no justification to interfere with the order of the CIT(Appeals). Accordingly, Ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is dismissed. " 5 (i) In view of the similar issue, being adjudicated by the Tribunal, in assessee's own case, the same is, respectfully followed and the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 6. In Ground Nos. 3 & 4, the assessee contended that CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs.29,47,650/- and Rs.12,02,550/- on account of sale of tender forms and establishment fees, paid to the contractor respectively. Ld. 'AR' stated, that the issues are covered agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed amount of donation has been received by them. As the onus is clearly cast on the assessee, to establish the factum of receipt of such donations and eligibility thereof , under the provisions of the Act, the same cannot be al lowed in the absence of discharging the onus cast on the assessee. The relevant findings of the CIT(A), on the issue, are reproduced hereunder: "7. Ground No. 6th on account of addition of Rs.3,01,90,158/- on account of sums received from HRDFA. The appellant had shown these as capital receipts whereas the AO had treated it to be revenue receipts. The appellant has challenged he addition stating that the amount in question is a contribution received from a charitable trust whose income is exempt u/s 12A of the I.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed." 8 (i) A bare perusal of the facts of the case and the relevant record, it is evident that such receipts cannot be treated as capital receipts and hence, findings of the CIT(A), do not suffer from any infirmity and the same are upheld. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 9. In Ground No.7, assessee contended that CIT(A) erred both on facts and law in confirming the addition of a sum of Rs.2,56,429/-, on account of honorarium paid to the Chairman. 9 (i) In the case of present appellate proceedings, ld. 'AR' contended that to run administration of the Board, it is essential that some competent person should be posted for rendering suitable service, in connection with assessee's business. This amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsence of such details, addition was made. 9 (iv) It cannot be denied that the Chairman rendered services to the assessee and for such services, he is entitled for some salary or honorarium. The assessee has paid honorarium to the Chairman, amounting to Rs.2,56,429/-. Needless to say, that it is imperative and a necessity for proper management of the activities of the assessee, to engage someone who can manage its activity efficiently. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A), is to be seen, in the light of the exigency of the activities of the assessee, in engaging such person as Chairman, for its management. Further, the addition has been made on the ground of non-filing of the details, in the matter. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
